MURRAY 

The  League  of  Nations  and 
the  Democratic  Idea 


The  League  of  Nations 

and  the 

Democratic  Idea 

BY 

PROFESSOR  GILBERT  MURRAY 


OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON    EDINBURGH    GLASGOW    NEW  YORK 

TORONTO  MELBOURNE   CAPETOWN   BOMBAY 

HUMPHREY  MILFORD 

1918 

Sixpence  net 


The  League  of  Nations 

and  the 

Democratic  Idea 

BY 

PROFESSOR  GILBERT  MURRAY 


•   OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

LONDON     EDINBURGH    GLASGOW    NEW  YORK 

TORONTO  MELBOURNE   CAPETOWN   BOMBAY 

HUMPHREY  MILFORD 

1918 


AMONG  all  the  evil  aspects  in  which  War  has 
-^^  revealed  itself  to  our  generation  there  is  none 
more  horrible  or  more  widely  felt  than  its  enslave- 
ment of  whole  nations  to  the  will  of  the  few. 

It  is  no  part  of  my  task  to  discuss  the  origins  of 
the  present  War.  The  verdict  of  history  is,  in  my 
judgement,  already  irrefutably  pronounced  ;(the  War 
^£1914  was  a  war  of  ambition  forced  by  the  German 
Government  upon  an  unwilling  worldj)  But  my 
present  purpose  is  to  discuss  the  War  merely  as 
a  fact,  irrespective  of  any  questions  of  its  'justice' 
or  'injustice'  or  the  comparative  degrees  of  guilt 
resting  on  this  party  or  that.  ^Whatever  view 
a  man  may  take  of  the  origins  of  the  War,  it 
remains  clear  that  millions  of  poor  men  in  divers 
regions  of  the  world  have  been  dragged  sud- 
denly, and  without  any  previous  action  of  their 
own,  into  a  quarrel  which  they  neither  made,  nor 
desired,  nor  understood  ;  and  in  the  course  of  that 
quarrel  have  been  subjected  again  and  again  to  the 


4  THE   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS 

very  extremity  of  possible   human   suffering,   while 
those  at  -whose  will  they  fight  for  the  most  part  con- 
template the  battles  from  a  distance  or  else  sit  at 
home    in  glory.      To  say  this  is   not  necessarily  to 
condemn  the  belligerent  Governments.    In  my  opinion 
some  of  them  were  grossly  to  blame  and  others  quite 
innocent ;  but  even  if  all  were  equally  to  blame,  or 
if  no  one  was   to  blame   at  all,  it  would  make  no 
difference.    \The  fact  is  unchanged   that,   under   the 
/present  conditions  of  state  organization  and  national 
\  sovereignty,  the   life  and  liberty  and  property  and 
happiness  of  the  common  man  throughout  the  world 
/  are  at    the  absolute  mercy  of  a  few  persons  whom 
)  he  has  never  seen,  involved  in  complicated  quarrels 
i   that  he  has  never  heard  oh    No  artisan,  no  peasant, 
^no  remote  wood-cutter  or  shepherd  in  the  whole  of 
Europe,  however   law-abiding  and  God-fearing,  can 
be  sure  henceforth  that  he  will  not  suddenly  by  due 
process  of  law  be  haled  away  to  a  punishment  more 
cruel    than    that    normally    reserved   for    the   worst 
criminals.   If  not  killed,  he  may  be  wounded,  blinded, 
maimed  for  life,  his  business  ruined,  his  family  reduced 
to  want  and  his  home  broken  up.     And  not  only  that. 
He  must  lose  not  only  his  happiness  but  his  inno- 
cence also.     He  must  do  things  which  his  whole  soul 
abominates.     He  must  give  himself  up  to  the  work 
of  killing  other  men  like  himself  and  previously  as 
innocent  as  himself.     And  all  of  it  owing  to  no  fault 
and  no  will  of  his  own ! 


THE   DEMOCRATIC   IDEA  5 

True,  when  he  is  called  upon  to  come  and  fight 
for  his  country,  the  matter  is  generally  put  to  him 
in  such  a  light  that  the  average  man  responds  with 
instinctive  loyalty.  He  joins  the  colours  willingly 
and  he  fights  bravely.  But  this  trustful  innocence 
of  the  victims  does  not  diminish  the  moral  hideousness 
of  the  whole  transaction.  The  wrong  is  doubtless 
more  flagrant  and  obvious  when  a  Russian  Jew,  or 
Tchech,  or  Croat,  or  Schleswiger  is  forced  to  fight 
and  die  for  a  cause  he  hates  ;  but  I  doubt  if  it  is 
inherently  more  repulsive  than  the  injury  done  to 
these  willing  victims  in  every  nation,  so  simple  and 
often  so  basely  deceived. 

This  does  not  mean  that  the  individual  statesmen 
responsible  for  a  war  are  villains.  Of  course  the 
true  war-makers  are.  The  men  who  plot  deliberate 
wars  for  national  or  personal  ambition  stand  ever 
more  deeply  damned  as  we  consider  the  full  nature 
of  their  action.  But  the  wrong  done  to  humanity 
may  be  almost  as  great  when  the  statesmen  concerned 
are,  in  ordinary  parlance,  free  from  all  blame.  Qfc 
sometimes  happens  that  mere  historical  causes  bring 
two  states  into  such  a  clash  of  national  interests  or 
ideas  of  honour  that,  under  present  conditions,  they_ 
can  hardly  help  declaring  war)  In  such  a  case,  it 
may  be  that  a  greater  degree  of  wisdom  might  have 
found  a  peaceful  way  out  of  the  difficulty.  (Butpl 
rjudged  by  ordinary  standards,  the  statesman  who, 
\jvith  a  just  cause  behind  him,  declares  war  cannotj 


6  THE  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS 

(be  blamed,  even  where  the  result  of  his  action  is  to 
[spread  fruitless  misery  over  whole  continents} 

It  would    seem,   then,   clear   not    only   that   war, 

when  it  occurs,  is  a  monstrous  evil  to  mankind  in 

general ;  but,  more  specifically,  that  the  whole  principle 

on  which  questions  of  Peace  and  War  are  decided  at 

the  present  day  involves,  in  most  cases,  a  frightful 

injustice  to  the  common  people.    ^One  can  see  what 

(  th?  revolutionary  Socialists  mean  when  they  asseverate 

\  wildly  that  all  wars  are  made  by  a  few  '  capitalists 

\  and    blood-suckers ',   and    that    no   people,   if  fairly 

[consulted,  would  ever  make  war  on  another} 

A  philosophic  Socialist,  especially  if  his  experience 
is  drawn  from  Russia  or  the  Central  Empires,  will 
drive  this  point  further  home. 

If  we  analyse  roughly  the  obvious  tendencies  that 
make  for  War,  he  will  point  out,  not  of  course  that 
they  are  confined  to  one  class  in  the  population,  but 
that,  in  part  at  least,  they  do  consist  in  '  sinister 
interests ',  and  that  such  interests  naturally  flourish 
more  among  the  rich  than  the  poor.  Of  course  it 
does  not  in  the  least  follow,  because  a  man  has  a 
sinister  interest,  that  he  is  necessarily  guided  by  it. 
There  are  thousands  of  countervailing  motives,  motives 
of  conscience,  honour,  public  opinion,  and  ordinary 
habit,  which  among  decent  members  of  an  average 
decent  society  swamp  and  obliterate  the .  sinister 
motive.  It  is  to  the  interest  of  the  medical  profession 
that  there  should  be  epidemics,  to  that  of  the  under- 


THE  DEMOCRATIC   IDEA  7 

takers  that  they  should  be  fatal;  but  neither  pro- 
fession can  be  accused  of  habitually  pursuing  these 
ends.  '  Still ',  our  Socialist  will  argue,  '  the  sinister 
interests  are  always  there,  a  source  of  possible  danger. 
In  a  completely  unmilitarized  and  uncorrupt  society 
they  do  no  harm ;  but  if  once  the  poison  gets  into  the 
system,  they  begin  to  act.' 

^The  most  obvious  '  sinister  interest '  is  that  of  the 
Armament  firmed  We  most  of  us  remember  the 
revelations  that  took  place  in  1913,  showing  that 
Krupps,  for  example,  not  only  possessed  German 
newspapers  —  one  of  them  professedly  Socialist! — 
which  they  used  for  their  own  purposes.  This  was 
bad  enough.  But  they  actually  owned  French  news- 
papers as  well,  and  had  press-agents  in  Russia ;  and 
thus  manipulated  the  press  on  both  sides  of  the 
frontier.  This  was  an  obvious  infamy.  One  can 
hardly  imagine  that  after  the  War  the  state  of  things 
which  led  to  it  will  be  tolerated  in  any  decent  society. 
The  Armament  rings  are  great  commercial  companies 
which  will  be  ruined  if  the  nations  enjoy  long  and 
secure  peace,  will  make  considerable  fortunes  if  there 
is  frequent  fear  of  war,  and  colossal  fortunes  if  there 
is  actual  war.  (In  other  words,  here  we  have  groups^ 
of  people,  and  powerful  groups,  who  are  subject  to  an 
enormous  and  perpetual  temptation  to  compass  the 
utter  misery  of  their  fellow-creatures,  and  who  hayej 
every  facility  for  doing  so  in  secrelX 

Again,  though  commerce  and  finance  have  on  the 


8  THE   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS 

whole  always  suffered  heavily  through  war,  it  is 
notorious  that  a  great  many  persons  and  companies 
have  made  vast  fortunes,  both  in  this  and  in  previous 
wars  ;  and  it  is  not  likely  that  none  of  them  expected 
to  do  so  beforehand.  Some,  no  doubt,  were  com- 
pletely taken  by  surprise  by  their  own  profits ;  and 
no  one  would  for  a  moment  suggest  that  because 
a  firm  made  money  out  of  some  war  therefore  its 

^.  * 

directors  desired  the  war.     vBut  evidently  there  do 

s~^  \ 

[exist  a  number   of  moneyed   interests  to  which   a 
/outbreak  of  war  means  success  and  prosperity^ 

(Another  sinister  interest  is  that  of  the  professional 
(  Army  ami  Navy,  especially  in  their  more  ambitious 
1  elements^  To  say  this  implies  no  prejudice  against 
the  soldier  or  sailor  ;  it  implies  only  that  their  nature 
is  human  nature.  To  educate  a  man  for  the  Army ; 
to  train '  him  in  a  walk  of  life  which,  to  those  who 
follow  it,  seems  by  far  the  most  thrilling  and  glorious 
in  the  world ;  to  accustom  him  to  the  thought  that 
war,  when  it  comes,  will  bring  him  a  chance  to  use 
all  his  powers,  to  serve  his  country,  to  rise  in  his 
profession,  and  to  leap  perhaps  from  obscurity  to  the 
most  dazzling  form  of  glory  that  humanity  knows : 
to  do  all  this  and  then  expect  him  not  to  desire  war 
is  surely  to  demand  too  much  of  human  nature.  Of 
course  a  conscientious  soldier  will  often  work  con- 
scientiously to  avoid  war.  An  experienced  soldier 
will  often  feel  more  gravely  than  any  civilian  the 
horrors  of  war.  But  one  has  only  to  talk  intimately 


THE  DEMOCRATIC   IDEA  9 

in  time  of  peace  to  a  few  young  officers  to  realize  how 
their  spirits  naturally  leap  up  at  the  prospect  of 
putting  in  practice  the  art  to  which  they  have  devoted 
their  lives. 

It  is  no  doubt  quite  the  reverse  with  the  average 
unprofessional  army,  whether  volunteer  or  conscript. 
The  temporary  soldier  makes  all  the  sacrifice  and 
stands  to  receive  almost  none  of  the  rewards.  In 
most  wars  it  is  the  higher  command  which  has  the 
most  to  hope  for  and  the  least  to  suffer. 

And  the  statesmen  ?  Our  Socialist  critic  will  not 
let  them  off  lightly.  Statesmen  have  no  friends.  If 
he  is  reasonable  we  may  get  him  to  admit  that  among 
those  statesmen  whom  he  has  known  personally  there 
was  as  great  ability  and  as  much  strength  and  lofti- 
ness of  character  as  he  could  have  expected  to  find 
in  any  other  walk  of  life.  'But',  he  will  argue, 
'  statesmen  deal  habitually  with  such  large  issues,  and 
have  to  preserve  their  calm  of  mind  amid  such  vast 
ebbs  and  flows  of  human  suffering,  that  their  judge- 
ment in  such  matters  becomes,  and  ought  to  become, 
to  a  certain  extent  inhuman.  If  it  is  part  of  your 
daily  business  to  sign  death-warrants  you  cannot 
afford  to  feel  upset  about  each  one  of  them.  Remember, 
too,  that  the  career  of  a  statesman  offers  dazzling 
prizes,  and  therefore  is  specially  attractive  to  men 
of  strong  ambition  ;  and  then  consider  how  a  very 
ambitious  man  who  longs  for  a  great  place  in  history 
may  be  tempted  by  the  thought  of  a  victorious  war. 

A  3 


10  THE   LEAGUE   OF  NATIONS 

Such  a  man,  like  the  Milesians  in  the  Greek  proverb, 
is  not  by  any  means  a  devil,  but  he  may  act  as  if 
he  was.' 
(Jt  is  considerations  like  these  which  explain  both 

'the  passionate  protest  against  war  and  war-makers 
which  rises  from  the  democratic  and  socialist  parties 
of  Europe,  and  also  the  belief  of  many  pacifists  that 
the  one  antidote  to  the  poison  of  war  is  Democracy 
pure  and  simple) 

The  common  people,'  they  argue,  '  alike  in 
almost  every  war,  feel  that  they  never  made  it. 
They  were  trapped  into  it.  The  war  was  prepared  in 
secret  by  small  numbers  of  rich  and  powerful  men — 
not  of  course  by  all  the  rich  and  powerful,  but  by 
some  small  groups  of  them — and  only  sprung  upon 
the  peoples  when  it  was  too  late  to  speak.  And  who- 
ever may  gain  from  the!war£,the  common  man  can/ 
only  lose)  he  loses  more  no  doubt  if  his  country  is 
beaten  than  if  it  wins,  but  he  loses  either  way.  His 
business  is  merely  to  bear  the  burden ;  to  fight  and  be 
killed,  and  suffer  and  continue  to  surfer,  sometimes  to 
go  mad  from  prolonged  agony,  while  eminent  persons 
in  comparatively  safe  positions  make  touching  speeches 
about  his  high  animal  spirits  and  careless  heroism. 
The  people  who  gain  are  a  few  scores  of  politicians, 
few  hundred  soldiers  and  adventurers,  and  a  few 

1  hundred  thousand  profiteers — from  contractors  to 
munition-workers^ 

Thinking  along  these  lines,  the  remedy  seems  plain. 


THE   DEMOCRATIC   IDEA  11 

'  Let  the  people  themselves  conduct  their  own  foreign 
policy.  Let  there  be  no  more  "  secret  diplomacy  "  ; 
no  secret  treaties,  nor  conclaves,  nor  understandings, 
nor  negotiations.  Let  every  word  spoken  and  every 
step  taken  be  absolutely  public  and  open.' 

The  weakness  of  this  programme  soon  becomes 
visible.  For  one  thing,  in  order  to  work,  it  must  be 
accepted  by  all  countries  alike.  It  cannot  be  uni- 
lateral. It  would  be  too  dangerous  having  diplomacy 
open  in  Britain  and  America  while  it  remains  secret 
in  Germany;  having  one  party  reyeal  all  their 
counsels  and  the  other  not.  But  beyond  that,  there 
is  confusion  of  thought  in  the  phrase  '  secret  diplo- 
macy ',  because  it  does  not  distinguish  between  the 
negotiation  and  the  result  of  the  negotiation.  To 
avoid  secret  treaties  is  quite  practicable,  at  any  rate 
in  times  of  peace ;  and  Great  Britain  had  as  a  matter 
of  fact  during  the  present  century  resolutely  avoided 
them.  None  the  less  we  were  drawn  into  war.  To 
avoid  secret  negotiations  is  a  totally  different  thing, 
and,  to  my  mind,  an  impossible  one.  It  would  imply 
that  no  two  statesmen  are  ever  to  discuss  an  impor- 
tant international  question  together,  ejreept  in  the 
presence  of  reporters.  Such  a  rule  would  be  utterly 
destructive  of  business.  Delicate  situations  must 
sometimes  be  talked  over  in  private  if  they  are  not 
to  result  in  open  ruptures.  Indeed,  as  a  matter  of 
practice,  if  statesmen  themselves  were  forbidden  ever 
to  meet  for  consultation  without  informing  the 


12  THE   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS 

Kolnische  Zeitung  and  the  Daily  Mail  they  would 
simply  depute  unofficial  friends  to  meet  privately  on 
their  behalf.  The  idea  is  impracticable. 

But  the  fundamental  error  lies  deeper.  The  whole 
notion  that  because  war  and  war-making,  as  things 
now  stand,  not  only  cause  practical  injury  to  the 
common  people,  but  constitute  an  intolerable  outrage 
on  human  freedom,  therefore  a  mere  democratizing  of 
international  machinery  would  ensure  peace,  is,  in 
,  my  judgement,  a  false  inference^ 

^If  wars  sprang  entirely  from  class  interests,  from 
deliberate  avarice  or  ambition,  there  would  be  some 
plausibility  in  the  theory,  though  even  then  we  should 
have  to  admit  that  there  are  large  classes  among  the 
rich  who  suffer  cruelly  from  war  and  large  classes 
among  the  poor  who  make  high  wages  by  it.  But 
notoriously  other  causes  are  at  work  too.  mars 
fspring  just  as  much  from  national  passion  and 
[ignorance  as  from  selfish  scheming^  And  in  most 
wars  of  recent  times  you  could  find  as  much  war 
frenzy  in  the  Jingo  mob  as  in  the  most  plutocratic 
club  or  drawing-i'oom.  The  idolization  of  the  working 
class  is  not  much  less  foolish  than  other  idolizations. 
Man's  virtue  does  not  vary  according  to  his  class  or 
his  income ;  it  varies  neither  directly  nor  yet  in- 
versely ;  and  it  merely  obscures  counsel  to  talk  as 
if  it  did. 

True,  if  you  take  the  real  leaders  of  the  working 
class  throughout   Europe   they   have   a   remarkably 


13 

clean  record  in  this  matter.  That  is  because  the 
working  classes,  like  most  other  large  groups,  are  led 
not  by  their  average  men  but  by  their  idealists.  No 
one  can  attend  many  Socialist  conferences  or  Trade 
Union  Congresses,  or  Workers'  Educational  gather- 
ings, or  other  meetings  of  the  elite  of  the  working 
class  in  Great  Britain  without?  feeling  the  strong 
idealism  of  the  atmosphere.  And  I  believe  it  is  much 
the  same  in  most  other  civilized  nations.  The 
audiences  at  such  meetings  will  be  duly  interested, 
no  doubt,  in  plans  for  raising  their  own  wages  and 
shortening  their  hours  of  work,  but  they  are  not 
roused  or  swept  into  enthusiasm  except  by  an  appeal 
to  some  great  cause  or  ideal.  Indeed,  unless  my 
insight  is  at  fault,  I  should  say  that,  in  a  meeting  of 
working  men,  even  when  the  discussion  appears  on 
the  surface  to  be  concerned  merely  with  material 
subjects,  the  hearts  of  the  audience  are  generally  set 
on  something  quite  different.  They  are  not  thinking 
of  '  bread  and  circuses ' ;  they  are  thinking,  however 
crudely,  of  the  building  of  the  New  Jerusalem.  And, 
together  with  other  great  causes,  they  believe  intensely 
in  Freedom  and  in  Peace.  But  that  is  in  part  because 
the  societies  that  I  speak  of,  the  Socialist  bodies,  the 
Trades  Unions,  the  workmen's  Liberal  and  Kadical 
Associations,  have,  in  all  the  democratic  nations  alike, 
an  idealist  atmosphere.  They  tend  to  be  led  by  the 
best  minds  of  their  class,  who  agree  in  most  matters 
with  the  best  minds  of  other  classes.  No  doubt  the 


14  THE  LEAGUE   OF  NATIONS 

workers'  hatred  of  war  is  intensified  by  the  plain 
facts  of  their  own  class  interest,  and  this  makes  the 
general  sentiment  for  peace  stronger  in  the  working 
class  than  among  the  wealthy.  But  the  working-class 
crowds  at  racecourses  and  football  matches,  in  public- 
houses  and  music  halls,  are  not  appreciably  more 
peaceful-minded  nor  yet  high-minded  than  wealthier 
people  of  the  same  type. 

Throughout  most  of  human  history  there  have 
been  from  time  to  time  outbreaks  of  theory  tending 
to  glorify  the  absolute  proletariate.  Not  merely  the 
worker  or  craftsman,  but  the  outcast,  the  dis- 
inherited, the  oppressed.  Its  latest  outcrop  is 
Bolshevism.  The  proletariate,  in  the  strict  sense 
of  the  word,  is  that  completely  undistinguished  mass 
of  human  kind  which  remains  permanently  at  the 
bottom,  while  other  people  have  either  saved  money 
or  shown  ability  or  made  a  reputation  or  learnt  a 
trade,  or  somehow  provided  themselves  with  some 
security  against  the  future.  And  the  ground  for 
glorifying  them  is  mere  despair  of  human  nature. 
The  Bolshevik  theorist  has  observed  that  it  is  not 
only  kings  and  priests  and  soldiers  who  oppress  the 
community ;  all  through  sopiety  each  class  is  hard 
upon  the  class  below  it.  The  capitalist  oppresses 
the  small  trader,  the  bourgeois  oppresses  the  work- 
man, the  skilled  artisan  oppresses  the  unskilled  and 
unorganized.  Therefore,  he  argues,  the  only  way  to 
avoid  oppression  is  to  put  power  in  the  hands  of 


THE   DEMOCRATIC   IDEA.  15 

the  lowest   class   of  all.       They   alone   are   entirely 
innocent ;  and  they  alone  can  oppress  nobody ! 

The  truth  of  course  is  that,  as  soon  as  the  power 
was  put  in  the  hands  of  the  'proletarians ',  they  would 
have  changed  their  social  character.  They  would 
have  become  a  ruling  class,  different  from  other  ruling 
classes  only  in  their  large  numbers  and,  perhaps  wd 
may  add,  in  their  extraordinary  lack  of  talent.  They 
would  be  exposed  to  all  the  temptations  that  beset 
every  governing  class,  and  would  be  particularly  ill- 
suited  to  resist  them.  Their  rule  would  be  no  safe- 
guard against  war  or  anything  else. 
'  \£he  fundamental  error  of  the  Bolshevik  or  sans- 
culotte theorist  lies,  I  believe,  in  his  conscious  or 
unconscious  acceptance  of  class  selfishness  as  the 
natural  and  unavoidable  basis  of  human  governmerty. 
If  every  ruling  class  is,  as  a  matter  of  course,  to  rule 
in  its  own  interests,  then  by  all  means  let  the  largest 
class  rule ;  but  the  hypothesis  itself  is  one  that 
destroys  all  hope  for  the  future  of  mankind.  To 
accept  it  is  a  sin  against  the  whole  spirit  of 
Democracy.  Cjhe  essential  doctrine  of  Democracy  is" 
that  each  man,  as  a  free  human  soul,  lives  of  his  free 
will  in  the  service  of  the  whole  peopled)  This  ideal 
is  no  doubt  hard  to  attain,  but  it  is  not  hard  to  aim 
at.  It  is  the  only  ideal  permanently  possible  for 
any  society  that  has  emerged  from  the  rule  of  mere 
custom  or  the  divine  right  of  kings.  In  certain 
ancient  Greek  cities  a  man,  before  casting  a  vote, 


16  THE   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS 

swore  in  the  presence  of  the  gods  that  he  was  voting 
to  the  best  of  his  judgement  for  the  good  of  the  whole 
city.  And  that  is  still  the  spirit  in  which  every 
good  citizen  ought  to  vote,  and  as  a  rule  does  vote. 

'The  externals  of  Democracy  as  a  form  of  govern- 
ment can  be  attained  easily  enough :  parliamentary 
institutions,  universal  suffrage,  abolition  of  privileges 
and  the  like.  But  Democracy!  as  a  spirit  is  not 
attained  until  the  average  citizen  feels  the  same 
instinctive  loyalty  towards  the  whole  people  that  an 
old-fashioned  royalist  felt  towards  his  King.  It  is 
that  spirit  which  is  first  needed  in  order  to  build  up 
the  organization  for  preventing  war? 

For  that  is  the  need  before  us.  It  is  not  enough 
to  trust  to  the  presence  of  wise  statesmen ;  they 
can  be  so  easily  thwarted  by  fools.  It  is  not 
enough  to  make  them  directly  subject  to  democratic 
control ;  nor  to  remove  the  sinister  interests  which 
make  for  war  and  the  aggravating  causes  which 
make  disputes  more  difficult  than  they  need  be.  All 
these  things  are  good,  but  they  are  not  enough.  War 
does  not  always  arise  from  mere  wickedness  or  folly. 
It  sometimes  arises  from  mere  growth  and  movement. 
Humanity  will  not  stand  still.  One  people  grows 
while  another  declines.  One  naturally  expands  in 
a  particular  direction  and  finds  that  thereby  it  is 
crossing  the  path  of  another.  The  strong  and 
civilized  peoples  tend  to  spread  over  the  world.  The 
uncivilized  and  incompetent  peoples  both  tempt  others 


THE  DEMOCRATIC   IDEA  17 

to  war  by  their  weakness  and  provoke  them  by  their 
turbulence.  Races  hitherto  subject  to  others  make 
progress  and  demand  their  freedom.  All  these  modes 
of  growth  produce  situations  which  cannot  be  solved 
without  great  international  changes,  and  there  is  at 
present  no  machinery  for  accomplishing  such  changes 
except  the  monstrous  machinery  of  war. 

It  is  right  that  Italy  should  be  free  and  united  ; 
yet  how  could  that  have  been  achieved  except  by 
war  ?  How  could  America  have  become  independent  ? 
How  could  the  Balkan  peoples  have  escaped  from 
the  yoke  of  the  Turk?  All  these  changes  were 
obviously  desirable,  and  there  will  be  others  like 
them  in  the  future. 

When  the  need  for  change  occurs  within  the  limits 
of  one  sovereign  state  the  machinery  for  dealing 
with  it  exists,  and  the  difficult}7  is  far  less.  Most  of 
the  British  colonies  gained  their  powers  of  responsible 
government  without  serious  friction:  England  had 
learnt  her  lesson  in  America  and  Canada.  The 
gradual  growth  of  self-government  in  India  will  be 
an  infinitely  difficult  but  probably  a  peaceful  process. 
The  great  classical  instance  in  recent  times  is  the 
separation,  without  war,  of  Norway  and  Sweden,  an 

achievement  which  filled  Europe  with  admiration.      ~ 
s-< 

(yVhen  the  impending  change  affects  the  interests  of 
two  sovereign  states,  it  needs  good  statesmanship  and^ 
favourable  circumstances   to   avoid   a   quarrel)    The 
peaceful  partition  between  the  Powers  of '  spheres  of 


18  THE   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS 

influence '  in  Africa  was  justly  considered  a  great 
achievement  of  statesmanship ;  but  there  no  Power 
was  required  to  give  up  anything.  It  was  only  a 
question  of  mapping  out  their  future  gains.  Yet  it 
came  very  near  to  war.  The  peaceful  clearing  up  of 
the  outstanding  issues  be^een  Great  Britain  and 
France  towards  the  end  of  last  century  needed  the 
wisest  and  most  patient  diplomacy,  though  the  points 
at  issue  were  none  of  them  worth  even  a  day's  war. 
At  one  time  it  actually  seemed  as  if  war  might  have 
ensued  because,  in  a  clause  of  the  old  Treaty  of  Utrecht, 
granting  certain  fishing  rights  to  the  French,  no  one 
had  thought  of  deciding  whether  lobsters  were  fish. 
At  another  time  a  boundary  dispute  between  Vene- 
zuela and  British  Guiana,  in  which  the  maps  were  not 
in  agreement,  seemed  incapable  of  settlement  except 
by  war  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States. 
And  such  wars  would  have  been  madness. 

True,  these  acts  of  madness  were  avoided.  Through- 
out the  nineteenth  century  and  up  to  1914  an  ever- 
increasing  number  of  international  difficulties  were 
settled  without  war.  The  method  was  diplomatic 
conference  and,  when  that  failed,  arbitration.  In 
1914  special  arbitration  treaties  already  existed  be- 
tween most  of  the  Western  nations,  except  Germany  ; 
and  not  only  the  treaties,  but  the  spirit  of  fair  dealing 
and  '  cordial  understanding '  which  had  grown  up 
between  Great  Britain  and  most  of  the  other  Powers, 
made  the  final  cessation  of  war  between  civilized 


THE   DEMOCRATIC   IDEA  19 

states  a  goal  by  no  means  unattainable.  It  only  needed 
the  further  spread  of  the  {  cordial  understanding '  to 
include  Germany  and  Austria,  and  so  achieve  that 
'  bringing  together  of  the  two  great  groups '  which  was 
the  main  purpose  of  Sir  Edward  Grey's  policy. 

(instead  we  have  had  the  Great  War.  Eut  in  thitf 
as  so  many  departments  of  life,  the  War  presents  us 
not  with  a  conclusion  but  with  a  tremendous  inter- 

c. — • — * — ' 

rogative.     Shall  we  go   infinitely  back  or  decisively^ 
lorwartRS   Shall   we   become   much   better  than  we 

-v  ~"~ 

were  or  vastly  worsej)  It  must  be  the  one  or  the 
other.  We  must  either  devote  the  whole  of  our 
national  energies  and  resources,  all  our  science,  all 
our  imagination,  all  our  leisure,  to  preparation  for 
a  next_war,  not  very  distant,  which  must  surpass  in 
horror  anything  that  the  world  has  known  and  must 
leave  European  civilization  poisoned  if  not  dead :  or 
we  must  by  deliberate  effort  build  up  some  permanent 
structure  of  international  understanding  which  will 
make  such  a  war  impossible.  To  do  the  first  we  need 
only  drift  with  the  tide ;  to  achieve  the  second  wo 
must  rise  up  and  conquer  circumstance!) 

The  problem  is  entirely  one  of  self-control  and  self- 
guidance.  Every  thinking  person  knows  that  if  the 
states  of  Europe  continue  to  practise  war  their  doom 
is  sealed.  The  precipice  is  visible,  straight  before  us  ; 
are  we  men,  with  the  power  to  think  and  check  our- 
selves and  turn  aside,  or  are  we  as  the  Gadarene  swine, 
incapable  of  turning?  The  situation  is  in  some  ways 


\ 


20  THE   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS 

like  that  of  the  drunkard  or  the  drug-taker  who  knows 
that,  saved  for  once,  he  must  from  henceforth  either 
abstain  or  perish.  But  in  one  way  it  is  much  more 
difficult.  It  is  complicated  by  the  constant  suspicion] 

\  that,  if  we  abstain  from  war,  other  nations  will  not./ 

\*^— ;  *•  *^-<^ 

If  we  disarm,  suddenly  or  gradually,  they  will  seiz^y, 

ifffe  opportunity  to  striked)  (As  we   think    on  these// 
lines^it  seems  as  if  we  must  at  least  be  prepared  for  | 
war ;    and  if  we  begin  to  prepare,   of  course  others  \ 
must    do    the    same  ;     and    thus    begins    the    fatal  \ 
competition  in   armaments    which   leads   to   gradual^  j 
bankruptcy  or  to  swift  destruction^" 
\ThereJs  no  way  out  except  co-operation?/  We  must] 


face  the  sacrifices.     We  must  give  up  some  part  of  1 
our  freedom.     We  must  be  prepared  on  occasion  to  \ 
allow  a  Congress  of  Powers  to  settle  questions  which  J 
we  should  prefer  to  treat  as  purely  domestic.^  We 
must  tame  our  pride  a  little.     And  in  return  we  shall 
both  form  a  habit  of  friendly  consultation  with  other 
Powers  instead  of  hostile  intrigue,  and  shall  be  saved 
from  the  deadly  dilemma  of  either  provoking  war  by 
making   preparations    or    inviting    attack    by   going 
unprepared.   \^.  number  of  nations  which  act  together 
can  be  strong  enough  to  check  an  aggressor  though 
no  one  of  them  alone  is  so  strong  as  to  threaten  its 
neighbours^ 

America  is  already  committed  to  the  League.  America, 
(the  richest  and  strongest  and  most  peaceful  Power  in 
1  the  world,  stands  as  the  nucleus?)  Some  other  Powers 

I -—X 


(THE  DEMOCRATIC   IDEA  21 


will  for  certain  join  it.  (Jhe  hope  is  that  the  League 
will  be  so  strong  and  general  that  to  stand  out  of 
it  will  be  a  marked  action.  The  Power  that  stands 
out  will  thereby  be  confessing  that  it  means  still,  in 
spite  of  all  that  the  world  has  suffered,  to  cleave  to 
war  and  make  its  fortune  by  waj\)  ftjet  us  hope  there 
may  be  no  such  Power.  But  if  there  is,  its  existence 
will  not  wreck  the  whole  League  ;  it  will  perhaps 
bind  it  the  more  together,  as  law-abiding  settlers 
stand  together  against  a  robber  or  pirated 

(As  to  machinery,  what  is  needed  in  the  first  place 

''is  probably  a  very  simple  thing  :  merely  an  adding 

together  of  the  present  arbitration  treaties,  so  that 

the  various  nations  which  have  separately  agreed  to 

arbitrate  their  differences  shall  form  a  League  with 

*  O  —    _  s 

mutual  guarantees)  \At  present  if  there  are  two 
nations  bound  by  treaty  to  arbitrate  and  one  chooses 
to  break  the  treaty  the  offender  suffers  nc  penalty. 
He  has  only  one  enemy,  and  that  an  enemy  of  his 
own  choosing.  But  if  there  are  twelve  nations  the 
Offender  has  eleven  enemies?)  Again,  where  there  is 
a"Heague  of  many  Powers  there  is  no  danger,  as  there 
may  be  in  a  separate  arbitration,  of  two  arbitrating 
Powers  settling  their  differences  at  the  expense  of 
a  third^Cstill  more  important,  such  a  League  would 
be  a  permanent  organ,  always  ready  to  act,  and.  jena* 
Bodied  in  a  permanent  machinery^  It  would 

old  Concert  of  Europe^  have  to  be  called  int&> 
iction  at  the  last  moment  to  deal  with  a  trouble  that  ) 


22  THE   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS 

\  is  already  acute^(    And  it  would  not,  like  the  Concert,  1 
consist  of  diplomatists  whose  normal  business  is  to 
think  only  of  their  own  country's  interests.    It  would/ 
consist  of  men  trained  and  accustomed  to. Jjiink  for' 


___ 

the  common 



Most  of  the  schemes  hitherto  proposed  for  a  League 
"oF  Nations  contenlplate  the  formation  of(two)sinter- 
national  bodies  for  dealing  with  the  two  different 
forms,  of  international  friction  which  at  present  act 
as  causes  of  war.  These  are,  (first}  definite  questions 
of  right  and  wrong,  of  damages  and  reparations,  which 
can  be  brought  before  a  judiciary  Tribunal  and  decided 
on  legal  principles.  Secondly,  those  clashes  of  interest 
or  national  honour  which  are  not  capable  of  such 
decision,  especially  those  of  the  sort  already  men- 
tioned, which  arise  from  the  development  of  the 
human  race  and  the  natural  expansion  of  the  more 
civilized  populations  as  compared  with  the  less  civi- 
lized. These  clashes  j)f  national  need  are  not  matters 
of  law,  nor  yet  of  arbitration :  they  call  for  foresight 
and  constructive  statesmanship} 


For  the   first   classnof LdifiJereucea^.there   must  be 


^  a  Tribunal,  judicial  in  character^ike  the  Tribunal  at 
s  Hagu^)  composed  of  learned  and  disinterested 
lawyers,  chosen  from  different  nations  in  some  more 
or  less  fixed  proportions,  but  of  course  by  no  means 
regarded  as  representing  national  interests.  They 
are  there  to  do  justice,  irrespective  of  nationality. 
The  formation  of  this  body  should  not  be  difficult. 


23 

The    problem    has     already    been     solved     at     The 
Hague. 

The  other  body  presents   both  greater  difficulties} 
and,  if  successful,  greater  advantages.     It  is  sometimes 
stylecf  a^Council  of  Conciliation,  sometimes  described  ' 
C&s  a  sort  of  International  Parliament     Its  business 

S<1_.         ^— v  -  — — ^ ^ 

will  be]  not  to  judge  causes  or  give  binding  decisions, 
much  less  to  issue  decrees  like  the  Tribunal,  but  ;tp 
discuss  beforehand  problems  of  international  policy, 
to  enable  the  nations  to  join  in  common  council  and 
to  exercise  a  common  foresight*  __  Such  a  Council  of 
Conciliation  ought  to  haveCtou)?1  special  advantages. 
IfwiUdiscuss  questions  early,  before  they  have,  grown 
dangerous  or  inflamed.  It  will,  by  the  mere  presence 
of  a  calm  and  disinterested  majority,  tend  to  keep 
tHe  atmosphere  cool  and  the  chief  disputants  reason- 
able, It  will  make  it  easier  for  either  of  them  to  give 
way,  since  he  will  not  be  yielding  to  his  opponent 
but  accepting  the  opinion  of  their  common  friends. 
And  lastly,  though  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  introduce 
an  element  of  compulsion  into  the  discussions  or 
recommendations  of  the  Council,  there  will  be  the 
knowledge  that,  where  the  general  opinion  is  clear. 
tEere  is  force  somewhere  in  the  background  A* 
nation  which  goes  definitely  against  the  policy  of  the 
Council  of  Conciliation  knows  that  sooner  or  later  it 
is  likely  to  face  the  Tribunal,  and  behind  the  Tribuna 
there  is  the  sanction  of  tha  economic  boycott,  o 
^-excommunication,  and  ultimately  of  a  crushing  war" 


24  THE  LEAGUE   OF  NATIONS 

interesting  objection  has   been  raised   to   th^, 

workii 

V- 


working  of  this  CounciD    The  members,  it  is  argued, 


if  selected  by  their  various  nations,  as  they  must 
natural!}'  be,  will  be  merely  so  many  diplomatists, 
each  representing  his  own  nation  and  bound  to  act 
in  its  interests.  And,  since  they  will  not  be  dealing 
as  judges  with  definite  points  of  law,  but  as  politicians 
arguing  for  discrepant  policies,  the  analogy  of  The 
Hague  does  not  help  us  much.  (^Imagine  a  clash  of 
interests',  the  objector  says,  'between  France  and 
German^)  The  French  representative  will  speak  for 
French  interests,  the  German  for  German  interests?) 
\  Each  will  expect  his  friend  to  act  as  "  a  brilliant 
second ",  like  Austria  at  Algeciras.  And  the  result 
will  be  not  justice  nor  even  an  attempt  at  justice. 
It  will  be  merely  a  veiled  struggle.  And  in  the  end 
perhaps  it  will  be  decided  by  the  far  from  disinterested 
votes  of  some  Balkan  or  South  American  states, 
following  the  lead  of  the  Power  that  they  fear  most. 
How  can  we  expect  any  spirited  nation  to  accept  such 
a  decision "? ' 

b  this  objection,  which  is  no  doubt  a  serious  one 
there  are  three  chief  considerations  to  urge  in  reply,! 
irs).,  the  character  of  the  Councillors  selected.  It  is 
not  in  the  least  impossible,  it  is  not  even  difficult,  to 
select  in  any  of  the  leading  Powers  half  a  dozen  or 
more  wise  and  trustworthy  men,  who  will  discuss 
a  great  question  with  a  sincere  desire  to  reach  the 
best  and  fairest  decision,  undisturbed  by  either  per- 


THE   DEMOCRATIC   IDEA  25 

sonal  or  national  interest)  I  could  certainly  name 
six  Englishmen  \vho  could  be  perfectly  trusted,  and 
I  think  I  could  name  an  equal  number  of  Frenchmen, 
Americans,  and  Scandinavians. 

(Secondly,  the  members  of  the  Council  will  have  | 
/"working  permanently  upon  them  a  stronger  motive 
\  than     any    ordinary    motive    of    national   pride    ory 
ambition — the  determination  to  avoid   war?)  It  is  a 
commonplace  to  point  out  that  this  motive  is  enor- 
mously strengthened  since  1914.     No  doubt  (the  TTaf") 
may  have  acted  in  two  opposite  ways  at  once.     It 
may  have   familiarized  great  numbers  of  men  with 
the   thought  of  slaughter.     It  may  have  doubled  or 
trebled  the  tendency  to  crimes  of  violence.     But  it 
has  surely   burned  deep  into  the  hearts  of  all  sane 
human   beings  the   sense    of  what  war   means — the 
horror,  the  misery,  the  incalculable  loss.      We  may, 
I  think,  feel  sure  that  during  the  next  ten  or  twenty 
years  at  least,  when  the  Council  will  be  forming  its 
habits  and  fixing  its  character,  the  members  will  meet 
in  a  quite  different  spirit  from  that  of  an  ordinary 
Diplomatic  Conference  of  the  old  sort.    CLhen  their^j 
/minds  were  full   of  their  various  national  ambitions ' 
and  antagonisms;  in  future  such  desires  will  surely  ' 
Jbe  dwarfed  by  one  main  concern — to  avoid  by  common/ 
counsels  the  common  ruinT^ 

(in  the  third  reason  we  come  back,  at  last,  to 
Democracy^  Our  imaginary  objector  argued  that 
each  party  of  delegates  would  be  exposed  to  the  full 


26  THE   LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS 

blast    of    public    opinion   at   home — of   chauvinism, 

nationalism,  aggressive  finance,  natural  prejudice,  and 

the  like.    There  are  many  ways  known  for  protecting 

them  against  these  influences,  as  for  instance  Judges 

are  protected,    v^ut,  beyond  all,  it  will  be  the  duty 

fof  the   peoples   themselves,   and    especially    of  their 

Headers,    to   make    their  international   connexions   a 

\reality  and  not  a  shainT^ 

"""Fortunately  other  practical  influences  are  already 
moving  in  this  direction.  The  greater  social  and 
political  questions  are  already  overflowing  the  geo- 
graphical boundaries  of  particular  nations.  Capital 
and  industry  are  largely  and  increasingly  inter- 
nationalized. It  is  a  matter  of  vital  concern  to 
workmen  in  one  country  that  the  workmen  of  a 
neighbouring  country  shall  not  be  locked  out  or 
starved.  Their  fortunes  are  involved  in  the  fortunes 
of  their  fellow- workmen  throughout  Europe.  And 
the  same  is  true  of  the  employers  and  organizers. 
The  churches,  too,  if  they  are  to  keep  alive, 
must  know  what  is  interesting  similar  churches  in 
other  nations.  The  philanthropists,  temperance  re- 
formers and  the  like,  in  various  countries,  are  forming 
more  and  more  the  custom  of  conferring  and  acting 
together.  In  one  of  the  greatest  problems  of  the 
future,  the  treatment  of  subject  nationalities  and 
inferior  races,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  the 
friends  of  the  '  native  '  should  try  hard  to  act  together, 
since  those  who  exploit  him  are  already  instinctively 


THE   DEMOCRATIC  IDEA  27 

in  league.  These  obvious  international  needs  will 
have  their  effect  on  public  feeling  and  are  bound 
to  be  reflected  in  the  press.  The  great  questions  will, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  be  chiefly  questions  of  economics, 
of  industry,  of  political  principle  and  theory,  and  so 
far  as  they  are  mere  struggles  of  interest  they  will 
be  class  conflicts  rather  than  national  conflicts. 

This  tendency  must  be  helped  and  encouraged. 
Everything  must  be  done  to  prevent  the  great  issues 
which  divide  men's  minds  from  taking  the  form  of 
brute  struggles  of  greed  or  pride  between  armed 
nations.  Let  us  hope  that  the  disputes  which  come 
before  the  Council  of  Conciliation  will  not.  even  at  the 
worst,  be  merely  tugs-of-war  between  nations,  with 
no  principle  involved  but  competing  desires.  They 
will  also  raise  an  issue  between  Free  Trade  and 
Protection,  between  Industry  and  Agriculture,  between 
Liberalism  and  Reaction,  between  Socialism  and 
Capital,  or  between  some  other  of  the  great  principles 
or  groups  of  thought  which  divide  on  more  or  less 
similar  lines  all  the  progressive  nations  of  the  world. 
Divisions  of  this  sort  may  lead  to  hot  party  feeling. 
They  may  cause  grave  domestic  inconvenience.  But 
no  matter  how  hot  the  feeling  or  how  grave  the  in- 
convenience, we  can  put  up  with  them,  for  they  cannot 
in  themselves  lead  to  war.  No  split  of  opinion  or  even 
of  interest,  neither  political  nor  social  nor  religious,  is 
fatally  dangerous  as  long  as  it  is  not  a  split  between 
sovereign  states,  because  it  is  only  such  states,  and 


28  THE   LEAGUE   OF  NATIONS 

not  parties  or  churches  or  social  groups,  that  hold  the 
keys  of  the  arsenals. 

__^ho  principle  that  will  solve  the  problem  of  war  is1 
V  not  Democracy,  but  Internationalism)  (Or  if  that 
Avbrd  seems  to  imply  a  lack  of  proper  devotion  to 
one's  own  country,  let  us  say  it  is  not  Democracy  nor1, 
yet  Internationalism,  but  Brotherhood.  We  need  the 
growth  of  brotherhood  within  each  nation,  and1 
brotherhood  between  the  nations  also\^  It  may  seem 
folly  at  the  present  time,  when  half  the  world  is  wild 
with  hatred  of  the  other  half,  to  speak  of  brotherhood 
at  all.  But  great  extremes  lead  to  great  reactions. 
And  the  feeling  of  kindness  and  almost  of  tenderness 
that  good  soldiers  so  often  have  for  the  men  who  have 
fought  against  them  and  borne  the  same  sufferings, 
may  easily  spread  over  the  world  more  widely  than 
most  people  now  imagine.  The  orgy  of  nationalist 
passion  which  the  War  has  roused  will  in  part  perhaps 
persist,  but  in  part  will  produce  its  own  antidote. 
Things  have  been  done  no  doubt  in  this  War  which 
no  man  living  who  knows  of  them  can  forgive.  But 
a  generation  soon  passes.  The  burning  lava  quickly 
cools,  and  the  grass  and  flowers  grow  over  it.  I  wish 
one  could  be  as  confident  of  a  recovery  of  wisdom 
and  uprightness  in  the  public  affairs  of  Europe  as  we 
can  be  of  a  reaction  towards  peace  and  goodwill. 
For  in  the  building  up  of  a  League  of  Nations,  as  in 
all  great  constructive  work,  neither  correct  principles 
nor  good  intentions  suffice  to  ensure  success.  In  the 


THE   DEMOCRATIC   IDEA  29 

last  resort  it  is  a  question  of  human  character  and 
human  wisdom. 

The  next  European  war,  if  it  ever  occurs,  will 
surpass  in  horror  anything  that  the  world  has 
known.  It  will  be  to  this  War  as  this  War  has  been 
to  the  old  wars  of  our  fathers,  which  now  seem  but 
small  things,  strangely  chivalrous  and  ineffective  and 
almost  merciful.  A  strong  fear,  if  nothing  else,  will 
drive  the  nations  of  the  world  into  some  common  refuge, 
as  wild  beasts  in  a  flood  will  take  asylum  together  and 
forget  to  fight.  But  let  us  not  libel  our  own  nature. 
We  can,  after  all,  rise  to  the  call  of  higher  emotions 
than  mere  terror.  We  children  of  men  are,  in  spite 
of  present  appearances,  something  better  and  gentler 
than  the  tiger  and  the  snake.  And  the  War  itself, 
which  opened  such  an  abyss  of  human  cruelty,  has 
revealed  also  heights  hitherto  undreamed  of,  not, 
merely  of  physical  courage  but  of  devotion  and 
loyalty  and  self-sacrifice.  The  plain  fact  is  that  the 
men  who  are  caught  in  the  whirlpool  of  this  War 
are  too  good  for  the  life  they  now  live.  They  are  too 
good  to  be  used  for  cannon-fodder,  too  good  to  be 
trained  to  drive  bayonets  into  one  another's  intes- 
tines or  stamp  with  nailed  boots  on  one  another's 
face.  It  is  not  only  the  pacifist  and  the  eccentric 
who  is  craving  in  his  heart  for  a  gentler  world.  It  is 
not  only  the  thoughtful  soldier,  bent  beneath  a  burden 
of  intolerable  suffering,  who  is  torn  by  a  long  con- 
flict between  duties,  in  which  he  is  forced  to  accept 


30  THE  LEAGUE   OF   NATIONS 

the  most  hateful  as  the  most  compelling.  It  is  the 
common  man  and  woman,  the  workman  and  peasant 
and  teacher  and  civil  servant  and  tradesman,  who 
after  this  surfeit  of  hatred  is  wearying  for  a  return  to 
love,  after  this  waste  of  bestial  cruelty  is  searching 
the  darkness  for  some  dawn  of  divine  mercy,  after 
this  horror  of  ill-doing  and  foulness  unfoi'gettable  is 
crying  out,  each  man  in  his  loneliness,  for  the  spirit 
that  is  called  Christ. 

These  things  are  not  fancies.  They  are  real  forces 
and  full  of  power,  which  no  wise  statesman  will  over- 
look or  forget  to  reckon  with.  The  building  of  a 
League  of  Nations  is  not  an  affair  of  emotion  ;  it  is 
a  work  of  reason,  of  patience,  of  skill  in  international 
law  and  statesmanship  ;  but  those  who  have  faith 
in  the  work  will  be  helped  forward  by  these  hopes 
and  longings.  And  even  those  who  have  no  faith 
left  in  any  of  the  often-baffled,  often-discredited, 
schemes  of  human  brotherhood  will  yet  hesitate  to 
reject  the  attempt  at  a  League.  For  if  the  way 
forward  shows  only  a  doubtful  hope,  the  way  back- 
ward is  blocked  by  a  fear  that  is  not  doubtful,  a  cer- 
tainty more  ghastly  than  our  worst  dreams. 

Human  scepticism  and  human  inertia  are  powerful 
forces,  but  these  things  are  surely  stronger. 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parking  Lot  17  •  Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


oOm-3,'68  (H9242s8 )  9482 


